England headed for A Caliphate

[Tigers!]

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I think your reading is suspect. Best to let TVacc speak for his/her self.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures.

Of course not. I 'm simply not accepting that I (or TVacc) implied that we would not view a report stipulated to be "generated....to cover up their failures " as either biased or exaggerated.

Obviously the point that Tigers! was attempting to make was that a report generated by police or government might be biased or exaggerated. Of course it could be. The important question is how you decide which sources are, overall, most trustworthy. I suspect that in Trump's America you'll have different views than we have in the UK.

Bold - Exactly.
It's a matter of what we find doing our homework as I've indicated in post #409. Isn't this what critical thinking is all about? Will the government cover things up? Will the press bring it into the light of day?
We should all look at both individuals in charge or their reports, the funding, the reports themselves, and the review of the reports.
Then pick one and push the I believe button.

Precisely.
I have seen enough "independent" reports by governments to be wary of taking their conclusions at face value.
I will not shoot the messenger but rather look at the report's conclusions, contents etc.

 

[Tigers!]

You're insinuating that some of it is lies.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?
That would be more believable? Only to the the gullible.

No one suggested that.

That is exactly what TVacc suggested! (And TAC clicked an "I agree" at him.)

You're clearly wrong. No such thing was suggested. This is unusually sloppy argumentation for you.

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures. I would not have thought that was a controversial premise in the wake of the Post Office scandal.

Not forgetting the Windrush scandal and Grenfell Tower fire and the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war
The UK has sadly gone greatly downhill in recent decades

 

[Tigers!]

Why does the Home Office feel it necessary to give the following advice to asylum seekers entering the UK?

Asylum seekers have been told that rape, sexual harassment and domestic abuse are illegal in the UK, in guidance for new arrivals published by the Home Office.

If asylum seekers have to be told such things upon arrival then perhaps putting them straight into the community may not the the wisest option.

And the booklet itself.

 

[bilby]

411 posts of debate would indicate that Islam in the west is a troublesome issue regardless of reasons why.

The holocaust would indicate that Judaism in 1930s and '40s Germany was a troublesome issue regardless of reasons why, too.

That doesn't mean the Jews were in the wrong for causing trouble; And the existence of heated debates about Islam today doesn't mean the Muslims are in the wrong for causing trouble.

Your post reminds me of protesters being charged with criminal damage for the tooth-marks they left on a policeman's boots when he kicked them in the face.

 

[bilby]

Diversity is our strength!

Who is “us”?

Daily Mail "readers".

 

[bilby]

Why does the Home Office feel it necessary to give the following advice to asylum seekers entering the UK?

Asylum seekers have been told that rape, sexual harassment and domestic abuse are illegal in the UK, in guidance for new arrivals published by the Home Office.

If asylum seekers have to be told such things upon arrival then perhaps putting them straight into the community may not the the wisest option.

And the booklet itself.

Who says they have to be told?

They are told. But very few are not already aware.

On my arrival in Australia yesterday, I was repeatedly told by the Australian government not to import illegal drugs. Does this imply that I am a drug smuggler, or even that I am suspected of being one?

Does it imply that the people who do smuggle drugs are expected by the Commonwealth to be unaware that such smuggling is illegal?

Why does the Australian government feel it necessary to give that advice to citizens entering Australia? Are Australian citizens* notorious drug smugglers?






* Apart from our Schapelle, obviously

 

[TSwizzle]

If only these young men had been given the “don’t rape the local women” pamphlet this terrible situation could have been avoided.

Two illegal immigrants raped a woman at knifepoint while she was star gazing in a park during a 'harrowing attack'. Afghanis Khan Agah and Noorullah Ahmdzai treated their victim as an 'object they could use and abuse' on August 16 last year in Barking Park, east London, a court heard. Their victim was on a date with another man when, at around 11pm, her attackers pinned her down and said 'they just wanted to have some fun with her'. Ahmdzai, 26, raped her while Agah held a Swiss Army-type knife to her date's throat, threatening to kill him if he tried to call the police before the pair switched roles. Prosecutors said the woman was suffocated during the 'petrifying and awful' sex attack 'which left her numb'. The Daily Mail overturned a reporting restriction preventing Agah from being named. During the trial, Agah said he was aged 16 at the time of the attack and is now 17, but court records stated he is 19.
Ahmdzai came to Britain on a small boat in August 2023 and was housed in a hotel in London by the Home Office at the taxpayer's expense, before being moved to Liverpool. While in Liverpool his claim for asylum was rejected and he began working at a building site to pay for an appeal and returned to London.

Daily Mail

 

[Bomb#20]

You're clearly wrong. No such thing was suggested. This is unusually sloppy argumentation for you.

TVacc appears to disagree with you.

I think your reading is suspect. Best to let TVacc speak for his/her self.

He did speak for himself -- I was drawing your attention to the fact that he'd "Like"d the post where I said what he was suggesting.

Whereas a report generated by a government or police force trying to cover their failures would be any less biased and might not make exaggerated claims?

I take it from your highlighting that you're challenging the premise that the UK government tries to cover up its failures.

Of course not. I 'm simply not accepting that I (or TVacc) implied that we would not view a report stipulated to be "generated....to cover up their failures " as either biased or exaggerated.

Hmm. It looks like you parsed Tigers!'s question differently from how I did.

Obviously the point that Tigers! was attempting to make was that a report generated by police or government might be biased or exaggerated. Of course it could be.

And of course the one I quoted could be. Not sure how you intended "I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible." to be parsed. If you were calling me gullible for believing Lowe's report definitely isn't biased and exaggerated, I didn't indicate any such thing. If you were calling me gullible for believing Lowe's report might be unbiased and unexaggerated, well then, that would amount to you claiming it definitely is biased or exaggerated, so if that's what you meant, please point out a specific claim in the Lowe report that you have evidence is biased or exaggerated.

The bottom line seems to be that we have "known ultra right wing nutjob" on one side as grounds for suspicion, and "organization with a known track record of trying to cover their failures" on the other side.

The important question is how you decide which sources are, overall, most trustworthy. I suspect that in Trump's America you'll have different views than we have in the UK.

Not so much. Here's a survey of levels of public trust in government.

Switzerland 82.41%
...
United Kingdom 33.86%
Chile 32.94%
Greece 32.17%
Latvia 31.8%
United States 30.93%
...
Slovakia 22%

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it -- US trust in government took a massive nose dive because of Viet Nam and Watergate and has been almost flatlining ever since. It gained a little ground during the Reagan and Clinton administrations but the two Bush administrations forfeited what little good will their predecessors had gained. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/

 

[The AntiChris]

The bottom line seems to be that we have "known ultra right wing nutjob" on one side as grounds for suspicion, and "organization with a known track record of trying to cover their failures" on the other side.

You seem to be implying that publicly setup, funded and accountable reports/enquiries should be viewed with the same scepticism as privately funded special interest reports/enquiries. This seems to be taking healthy scepticism into the realms of the conspiracy theorists.

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it..

Are you really saying that the brazen and public lies told by Trump and his administration on a daily basis have little effect on public confidence?

Is this because, in your view, all previous administrations have lied as much (and we in the UK just haven't noticed) or do the US public not notice or not care about the dishonesty of the Trump admin?

 

[Elixir]

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it -- US trust in government took a massive nose dive because of Viet Nam and Watergate and has been almost flatlining ever since.

Opinion? Or do you have a reference?

Sources I’ve checked seem to agree that there was a very measurable spike in Americans’ “trust in government” following 9/11. Maybe we need more of that?
Of course it crashed later in the Bush II years, re-built slightly over Obama’s terms and has been in the dumper ever since.
The weird thing to me is that it tends to rise sharply in times of “trouble”, as if the mere fact we woke up in the morning becomes a credit to the government in times of perceived crisis.

 

[steve_bank]

Most Americans have never really trysted government or news media.

In the 50s I grew up hearing 'you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers' and 'you can't trust city hall'.

Before VN there was the Korean War, errr it was not a war a 'police action'. The way Putin describes the Ukrainian War.

Not just government, our hyper individualistic culture has a general disrespect and mistrust of any authority. If you don't understand that you do not understand America, at least as it has been.

I heard it said the Brits are born to line up in ques. Deference to aristocratic titles.

AI Overview
The phrase is a variation of "a healthy disrespect for authority," a popular sentiment famously associated with physicist Richard Feynman to describe a scientific mindset that questions dogma rather than accepting rules blindly.Contexts of the PhraseAuthority vs. Law: While the exact wording "healthy disrespect for the law" is occasionally used in legal critique or academic lectures (such as discourse around civil disobedience and systemic justice), it directly stems from the cultural idiom regarding authority.Feynman's Legacy: Biographers and colleagues frequently attribute "a healthy disrespect for authority" to Richard Feynman as the core philosophy behind his breakthrough work and his aversion to institutional pretense.To narrow down the exact source or speaker you are looking for, please share: The context or field (legal philosophy, tech culture, a specific book) An approximate timeframe (historic quote vs. modern media)Let me know so I can track down the precise origin for you.

 

[steve_bank]

UK government to give newly arrived doctors and engineers a pamphlet telling them not to rape the local women.

Asylum seekers have been warned in an official government guidebook not to rape or beat women. The Home Office publication setting out the 'rules and expectations' of living in Britain will be handed to asylum seekers as part of an education campaign. It warns: 'If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime in the UK.' Last year there were 41,472 arrivals by small boat – most of whom went on to claim asylum – and of those 34,201 were male.

Daily Mail

Diversity is our strength!

More doctors and engineers arriving in Spain.

Holidaymakers looked on in amazement as their day at the beach next to the famous La Manga Club on Spain's Costa Calida was interrupted by the arrival of a packed migrant boat. The men on board could be heard cheering as they reached the shore, while stunned sunseekers gathered up their belongings and moved away from the water's edge.

Daily Mail

Over here in he balance I'd say diversity is a strength. With us humans there is no p;erfect or ideal state on the scale of 400 million people.

You might say I am biased. I was born in NYC and grew up across the border in Ct. The region was diverse from imputation .It fueled growth. Greeks, Italians, Jews, Irish, Polish and others. Remember that Irish and Polish had to deal with a Jim Crow kind of discrimination.

When I was working in Hartford in the 70s Portuguese immigrants made up a pert of manufacturing labor.s

In thee 90s the west coast tech boom would not have happened without immigtants, a lot from Asia.

Our 'diversity' goes back to the 19th century. Small in number Muslims were here in the 19th century.

In the news another American radicalized by extreme Islam planning to bomb the NY capital. But then there are white radicals who bomb Jewish institutions. A long American history political violence excessive of Islam.

The old anarchists. The 60s 70s Wetatherr Undergrund, Weathermen. Bombers.

AI Overview
The Molly Maguires were a 19th-century secret society of Irish-American coal miners in Pennsylvania who fought harsh working conditions through intimidation and violence. Following an undercover investigation by the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, 20 suspected members were convicted and hanged in 1877 and 1878.

Over here you can not look at Muslims outside of a greater context.

My personal experience here in the USA is many Muslims mainstream at least to a degree.

 

[Bomb#20]

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it -- US trust in government took a massive nose dive because of Viet Nam and Watergate and has been almost flatlining ever since. It gained a little ground during the Reagan and Clinton administrations but the two Bush administrations forfeited what little good will their predecessors had gained. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it -- US trust in government took a massive nose dive because of Viet Nam and Watergate and has been almost flatlining ever since.

Opinion? Or do you have a reference?

You snipped the answer to your question from your quote.

The bottom line seems to be that we have "known ultra right wing nutjob" on one side as grounds for suspicion, and "organization with a known track record of trying to cover their failures" on the other side.

You seem to be implying that publicly setup, funded and accountable reports/enquiries should be viewed with the same scepticism as privately funded special interest reports/enquiries. This seems to be taking healthy scepticism into the realms of the conspiracy theorists.

In what idiolectic sense are you using the word "accountable"? Surely you don't imagine that Ms. Longfield and/or the civil servants working under her auspices will be punished in any way if they perpetrate a whitewash?

Both our governments are scraping the bottom of the ranking. Trump has little to do with it..

Are you really saying that the brazen and public lies told by Trump and his administration on a daily basis have little effect on public confidence?

Check the numbers yourself.

Is this because, in your view, all previous administrations have lied as much (and we in the UK just haven't noticed) or do the US public not notice or not care about the dishonesty of the Trump admin?

Dude, which part of "scraping the bottom of the ranking" didn't you understand? Of course the great majority of us notice and care about the dishonesty of the Trump admin! We don't trust him as far as we can throw him. The brazen and public lies had little effect on public confidence because there was little room at the bottom for the trust numbers to go lower. Previous administrations no doubt lied less (pace Nixon) but they lied plenty enough to be thoroughly untrusted. For gods' sake, the last admin brazenly lied for two years about who was running the country! If you in the UK didn't notice how much the US government lies, administration in administration out, it's probably because your countrymen have their hands full dealing with your own rulers' lies -- your trust-in-government numbers are only 2% higher than ours.

 

[bilby]

I heard it said the Brits are born to line up in ques. Deference to aristocratic titles.

Lining up in queues is deference to civilised and polite behaviour. If a bunch of people are waiting for something, pushing in front of those who were there ahead of you is just antisocial.

Nobody in Britain (except the aristocrats themselves) has given two shits about aristocratic titles since the 1960s.